Home Articles Forum Wiki Poll Garden Contact

 
 
 
  
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
 
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

  Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › Federal Politics › No more ‘anchor babies’
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9
Send Topic Print
No more ‘anchor babies’ (Read 8718 times)
Animal Mutha
Junior Member
**
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 83
Gender: male
Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #60 - Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:26pm  
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:21pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:08pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 5:26pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:44pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:18pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 3:00pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:05pm:
John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:01pm:
there's no accounting for taste

Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

one has to enjoy it when one idiot complements another for being an idiot Grin  It's great stuff.


so says the clown that thinks it is not illegal to break the law.

weird thinking...



No wonder you believe in fairy tales, you're just very, very thick.  Look up the difference in legal terms, ESPECIALLY given the migration act is a LEGAL document, not a bogan's toilet roll.






no, you actually said it is not illegal to break the law.  that is about as wrong as it is possible to get since the very definition of illegal is to break the law.

no, dumby, what I said was that breaking the law does not always imply illegality.

And, ONCE AGAIN, in any case this has nothing to do with whether a refugee can be ILLEGAL or not.  By definition a refugee can not be an ILLEGAL refugee.

bugger me, the typical round and round with you.  worse than armpit.


wrong again.  DEFINITIIONALLY, breaking a law means acting illegally.  to think otherwise would require the kind of mental gymnastics you are employing (and still failing).

your understanding of what a refugee is and isn't is also pitiful.  A refugee is not hard to define - as long as they are outside the country.  But once they are here they either got here legally or illegally.  there is no 'refugee only' exception made to entry.  You come with permission with a visa issued by the aust govt (refugee or not) or you come illegally.

You are making any discussion on refugees impossible by insisting they have a RIGHT above that of the law to be here.  They don't.  Australia decides (by law) to accept around 20,000 refugees per year. WE CHOOSE. They don't.  They come with permission or they end up in detention because.... yes here we go again... THEY ARRIVED ILLEGALLY.

But I am still loving your insistence that it is possible to break the law and not be committing an illegal act.  That is a priceless mangling of logic and commonsense.

Wow that was the biggest load of garbage I have ever read. Well done, stupid Grin

1) We have a voluntary permanent resettlement program that takes in 17,000 people per year for PERMANENT resettlement.  But that doesn't extinguish our responsibilities under the refugee convention to ALSO process any claimant who has sought asylum from Australia. We just don't need to give them permanent settlement, but we must offer them protection if we find them to be a refugee. There is NO NUMBER clause on this. And if your donkey memory cared to work you'd remember the case only a few months ago where scum tried to suggest we didn't need to give protection visas to someone (say they are refugee under our domestic law) because we reached a quota, and he was SHUT DOWN by the high court.  You dip.

2) When you break the law you break the law. Some laws you break and it means youv'e acted unlawfully. Others you break and it means you've acted illegally. Go learn the law before commenting.

3) A refugee can NEVER be an ILLEGAL REFUGEE.  Grin  Tell me HOW THEY CAN BE ILLEGAL REFUGEES?  A person who has received a refugee status can somehow be illegal?  What? Grin

4) And there actually is a refugee only exception made to entry: its called the refugee convention which explicitely says that it doesn't matter if the countries law was broken, that couldn't be used to deny the refugee status if they are genuine. Hence there is no punishment. You don't see us going, "Oh you are a refugee. We agree, here is your visa. Now we are arresting you or fininng you for breaking our law of entry."

You are a MASSIVE dipstick on this. Just stop while you still have some dignity left.
I'm glad you aren't in charge. It's reassuring that your silly opinions don't go any further than this left run crappy forum.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
sir prince duke alevine
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male
Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #61 - Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:35pm  
Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:26pm:
I'm glad you aren't in charge. It's reassuring that your silly opinions don't go any further than this left run crappy forum.

opinions? What you've quoted is not my opinion. It's not debatable whether the refugee convention says to ignore the method of entry. It's a fact that it does. It's not debatable whether we must process each claim for asylum we receive. The refugee convention makes it so. It's a fact.  It's also  not debatable that laws that are broken can be done in either an illegal way, or an unlawful way. That too, is a fact.

learn the difference between opinions and facts, jockey.
Back to top
 
Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.
 
IP Logged
 
Animal Mutha
Junior Member
**
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 83
Gender: male
Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #62 - Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:39pm  
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:35pm:
Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:26pm:
I'm glad you aren't in charge. It's reassuring that your silly opinions don't go any further than this left run crappy forum.

opinions? What you've quoted is not my opinion. It's not debatable whether the refugee convention says to ignore the method of entry. It's a fact that it does. It's not debatable whether we must process each claim for asylum we receive. The refugee convention makes it so. It's a fact.  It's also  not debatable that laws that are broken can be done in either an illegal way, or an unlawful way. That too, is a fact.

learn the difference between opinions and facts, jockey.
Yes mummy.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 74817
Gender: male
Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #63 - Oct 2nd, 2014 at 7:20pm  
Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:06pm:
John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:01pm:
there's no accounting for taste

Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
You are a litmus test for the health of the people smuggling industry . When you're  happy with the issue most Australians  aren't. That's because there's burning camps, dead people, diplomatic concerns  and billions going down the toilet. When we (most Australians ) are happy it's not a mess. So who's in the wrong and has a misguided mindset???


unlike you who is only happy when innocent people suffer so as to appease your racism
Back to top
 
Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 74817
Gender: male
Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #64 - Oct 2nd, 2014 at 7:21pm  
Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:06pm:
When we (most Australians ) are happy it's not a mess


most Australians want asyulum seekers treated humanely and fairly ...

I'm not worried Animalmutha ... Karmas a bitch  Grin Grin
Back to top
 
Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 74817
Gender: male
Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #65 - Oct 2nd, 2014 at 7:23pm  
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:48pm:
John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:46pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:43pm:
it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission


but they have permission, we gave them that permission when we signed the UN treaty.  They don't need to give permission to each individual asylum seeker before they come



complete rubbish. NO ONE has permission to enter ANY COUNTRY illegally.


I'm not talking about entering illegally, seeking asylum is perfectly legal
Back to top
 
Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 74817
Gender: male
Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #66 - Oct 2nd, 2014 at 7:24pm  
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:47pm:
John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:45pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:41pm:
actually, legally you ARE still doing something illegal.  What changes is that you have a valid DEFENCE against the act.  It might seem technical to you but it is a real distinction and is very apt here.  Seeking asylum after arriving illegally is fine but you are still committing an illegal act that has a DEFENCE of seeking and being granted asylum.  IF you are not granted asylum you have no defence.


it is not a defence ... whats to defend? you've done nothing illegal and will never be charged ... no defence necessary


I think the nuances of this discussion is too much for you.


I think waking up and breathing is to hard for you!
Back to top
 
Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #67 - Oct 2nd, 2014 at 8:05pm  
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:21pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:08pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 5:26pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:44pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:18pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 3:00pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:05pm:
John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:01pm:
there's no accounting for taste

Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

one has to enjoy it when one idiot complements another for being an idiot Grin  It's great stuff.


so says the clown that thinks it is not illegal to break the law.

weird thinking...



No wonder you believe in fairy tales, you're just very, very thick.  Look up the difference in legal terms, ESPECIALLY given the migration act is a LEGAL document, not a bogan's toilet roll.






no, you actually said it is not illegal to break the law.  that is about as wrong as it is possible to get since the very definition of illegal is to break the law.

no, dumby, what I said was that breaking the law does not always imply illegality.

And, ONCE AGAIN, in any case this has nothing to do with whether a refugee can be ILLEGAL or not.  By definition a refugee can not be an ILLEGAL refugee.

bugger me, the typical round and round with you.  worse than armpit.


wrong again.  DEFINITIIONALLY, breaking a law means acting illegally.  to think otherwise would require the kind of mental gymnastics you are employing (and still failing).

your understanding of what a refugee is and isn't is also pitiful.  A refugee is not hard to define - as long as they are outside the country.  But once they are here they either got here legally or illegally.  there is no 'refugee only' exception made to entry.  You come with permission with a visa issued by the aust govt (refugee or not) or you come illegally.

You are making any discussion on refugees impossible by insisting they have a RIGHT above that of the law to be here.  They don't.  Australia decides (by law) to accept around 20,000 refugees per year. WE CHOOSE. They don't.  They come with permission or they end up in detention because.... yes here we go again... THEY ARRIVED ILLEGALLY.

But I am still loving your insistence that it is possible to break the law and not be committing an illegal act.  That is a priceless mangling of logic and commonsense.

Wow that was the biggest load of garbage I have ever read. Well done, stupid Grin

1) We have a voluntary permanent resettlement program that takes in 17,000 people per year for PERMANENT resettlement.  But that doesn't extinguish our responsibilities under the refugee convention to ALSO process any claimant who has sought asylum from Australia. We just don't need to give them permanent settlement, but we must offer them protection if we find them to be a refugee. There is NO NUMBER clause on this. And if your donkey memory cared to work you'd remember the case only a few months ago where scum tried to suggest we didn't need to give protection visas to someone (say they are refugee under our domestic law) because we reached a quota, and he was SHUT DOWN by the high court.  You dip.

2) When you break the law you break the law. Some laws you break and it means youv'e acted unlawfully. Others you break and it means you've acted illegally. Go learn the law before commenting.

3) A refugee can NEVER be an ILLEGAL REFUGEE.  Grin  Tell me HOW THEY CAN BE ILLEGAL REFUGEES?  A person who has received a refugee status can somehow be illegal?  What? Grin

4) And there actually is a refugee only exception made to entry: its called the refugee convention which explicitely says that it doesn't matter if the countries law was broken, that couldn't be used to deny the refugee status if they are genuine. Hence there is no punishment. You don't see us going, "Oh you are a refugee. We agree, here is your visa. Now we are arresting you or fininng you for breaking our law of entry."

You are a MASSIVE dipstick on this. Just stop while you still have some dignity left.



oh it just gets better.... breaking some laws is ILLEGAL and breaking others is UNLAWFUL...  good grief.  Do you even understand that those terms are IDENTICAL???

Please give me an example of an act that is illegal but not unlawful.

Bet ya cant!

your idiocy on this matter is incredible.  How does anyone debate with you when you want to redefine the meanings of words?
Back to top
 
AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #68 - Oct 2nd, 2014 at 8:23pm  
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:21pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:08pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 5:26pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:44pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:18pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 3:00pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:05pm:
John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:01pm:
there's no accounting for taste

Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

one has to enjoy it when one idiot complements another for being an idiot Grin  It's great stuff.


so says the clown that thinks it is not illegal to break the law.

weird thinking...



No wonder you believe in fairy tales, you're just very, very thick.  Look up the difference in legal terms, ESPECIALLY given the migration act is a LEGAL document, not a bogan's toilet roll.






no, you actually said it is not illegal to break the law.  that is about as wrong as it is possible to get since the very definition of illegal is to break the law.

no, dumby, what I said was that breaking the law does not always imply illegality.

And, ONCE AGAIN, in any case this has nothing to do with whether a refugee can be ILLEGAL or not.  By definition a refugee can not be an ILLEGAL refugee.

bugger me, the typical round and round with you.  worse than armpit.


wrong again.  DEFINITIIONALLY, breaking a law means acting illegally.  to think otherwise would require the kind of mental gymnastics you are employing (and still failing).

your understanding of what a refugee is and isn't is also pitiful.  A refugee is not hard to define - as long as they are outside the country.  But once they are here they either got here legally or illegally.  there is no 'refugee only' exception made to entry.  You come with permission with a visa issued by the aust govt (refugee or not) or you come illegally.

You are making any discussion on refugees impossible by insisting they have a RIGHT above that of the law to be here.  They don't.  Australia decides (by law) to accept around 20,000 refugees per year. WE CHOOSE. They don't.  They come with permission or they end up in detention because.... yes here we go again... THEY ARRIVED ILLEGALLY.

But I am still loving your insistence that it is possible to break the law and not be committing an illegal act.  That is a priceless mangling of logic and commonsense.

Wow that was the biggest load of garbage I have ever read. Well done, stupid Grin

1) We have a voluntary permanent resettlement program that takes in 17,000 people per year for PERMANENT resettlement.  But that doesn't extinguish our responsibilities under the refugee convention to ALSO process any claimant who has sought asylum from Australia. We just don't need to give them permanent settlement, but we must offer them protection if we find them to be a refugee. There is NO NUMBER clause on this. And if your donkey memory cared to work you'd remember the case only a few months ago where scum tried to suggest we didn't need to give protection visas to someone (say they are refugee under our domestic law) because we reached a quota, and he was SHUT DOWN by the high court.  You dip.

2) When you break the law you break the law. Some laws you break and it means youv'e acted unlawfully. Others you break and it means you've acted illegally. Go learn the law before commenting.

3) A refugee can NEVER be an ILLEGAL REFUGEE.  Grin  Tell me HOW THEY CAN BE ILLEGAL REFUGEES?  A person who has received a refugee status can somehow be illegal?  What? Grin

4) And there actually is a refugee only exception made to entry: its called the refugee convention which explicitely says that it doesn't matter if the countries law was broken, that couldn't be used to deny the refugee status if they are genuine. Hence there is no punishment. You don't see us going, "Oh you are a refugee. We agree, here is your visa. Now we are arresting you or fininng you for breaking our law of entry."

You are a MASSIVE dipstick on this. Just stop while you still have some dignity left.


what you seem pathologically unable to understand is that being a refugee does NOT grant you entry into any country that signed that convention.  Firstly, it is a convention only ie not a legal document in the country and secondly, why do you think we have quotas on refugee settlement as does every other country?  Surely (according to you) they can go wherever they want, whenever they want.  In your make-believe world, being a refugee would be an enviable status. You can go anywhere, do anything and no one can stop you.  EXCEPT THAT THEY DO, because you point is nonsense and rather obviously so.
Back to top
 
AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
buzzanddidj
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14204
Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC
Gender: male
Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #69 - Oct 3rd, 2014 at 7:56am  
Quote:
BABIES born in detention will be classed as illegal boat arrivals and subject to the same ­offshore processing as their parents, under new laws ­designed to prevent them ­obtaining automatic Australian citizenship.





Perhaps the NEXT move could be
- when someone of "middle eastern appearance" is prosecuted for jay-walking,
their lineage could be traced back to some middle eastern country
- and they could be "deported" back to THERE ?
Back to top
 
'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'


- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
 
IP Logged
 
buzzanddidj
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14204
Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC
Gender: male
Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #70 - Oct 3rd, 2014 at 8:15am  
Quote:

Illegal
 arrivals in the past have used childbirth to
milk taxpayer-funded welfare





Am I reading
"news"
here - or a
Murdoch editorial/opinion
?
Back to top
 
'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'


- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
 
IP Logged
 
sir prince duke alevine
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male
Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #71 - Oct 3rd, 2014 at 10:30am  
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 8:23pm:
what you seem pathologically unable to understand is that being a refugee does NOT grant you entry into any country that signed that convention.  Firstly, it is a convention only ie not a legal document in the country and secondly, why do you think we have quotas on refugee settlement as does every other country?  Surely (according to you) they can go wherever they want, whenever they want.  In your make-believe world, being a refugee would be an enviable status. You can go anywhere, do anything and no one can stop you.  EXCEPT THAT THEY DO, because you point is nonsense and rather obviously so.

fck me, you choose to continue to lose your dignity. Fair enough, it's yours to lose, dipstick.

To answer your garbage, you need to look at my Point 1), Point 2)  and point 3) because simply repeating absolute NONSENSE does not give extra credibility to your utterly stupendous argument.

1. there actually is a refugee only exception made to entry: its called the refugee convention which explicitely says that it doesn't matter if the countries law was broken, that couldn't be used to deny the refugee status if they are genuine.   THIS IS A FACT. NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT.

2. We have a quota FOR OUR VOLUNTARY PERMANENT SETTLEMENT PROGRAM.  But NOT FOR THE AMOUNT OF PROTECTION VISAS WE HAND OUT. THIS IS A F.A.C.T.  NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT.

3. The convention is made law via our domestic MIGRATION ACT which EXPLICITLY SAYS IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO ENTER THIS COUNTRY BY BOAT.  Not only that but it ALSO EXPLICITLY COMPLIES WITH NOT PUNISHING ANY REFUGEE FOR THEIR UNLAWFUL ENTRY.  THIS IS A F.A.C.T  No matter how many times you choose to ignore it.

You seem to have a problem with facts. Is this a religious thing, because it seems to happen too often with you jebus idiots.  Grin
Back to top
 
Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.
 
IP Logged
 
sir prince duke alevine
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male
Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #72 - Oct 3rd, 2014 at 10:41am  
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 8:05pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:21pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:08pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 5:26pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:44pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:18pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 3:00pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:05pm:
John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:01pm:
there's no accounting for taste

Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

one has to enjoy it when one idiot complements another for being an idiot Grin  It's great stuff.


so says the clown that thinks it is not illegal to break the law.

weird thinking...



No wonder you believe in fairy tales, you're just very, very thick.  Look up the difference in legal terms, ESPECIALLY given the migration act is a LEGAL document, not a bogan's toilet roll.






no, you actually said it is not illegal to break the law.  that is about as wrong as it is possible to get since the very definition of illegal is to break the law.

no, dumby, what I said was that breaking the law does not always imply illegality.

And, ONCE AGAIN, in any case this has nothing to do with whether a refugee can be ILLEGAL or not.  By definition a refugee can not be an ILLEGAL refugee.

bugger me, the typical round and round with you.  worse than armpit.


wrong again.  DEFINITIIONALLY, breaking a law means acting illegally.  to think otherwise would require the kind of mental gymnastics you are employing (and still failing).

your understanding of what a refugee is and isn't is also pitiful.  A refugee is not hard to define - as long as they are outside the country.  But once they are here they either got here legally or illegally.  there is no 'refugee only' exception made to entry.  You come with permission with a visa issued by the aust govt (refugee or not) or you come illegally.

You are making any discussion on refugees impossible by insisting they have a RIGHT above that of the law to be here.  They don't.  Australia decides (by law) to accept around 20,000 refugees per year. WE CHOOSE. They don't.  They come with permission or they end up in detention because.... yes here we go again... THEY ARRIVED ILLEGALLY.

But I am still loving your insistence that it is possible to break the law and not be committing an illegal act.  That is a priceless mangling of logic and commonsense.

Wow that was the biggest load of garbage I have ever read. Well done, stupid Grin

1) We have a voluntary permanent resettlement program that takes in 17,000 people per year for PERMANENT resettlement.  But that doesn't extinguish our responsibilities under the refugee convention to ALSO process any claimant who has sought asylum from Australia. We just don't need to give them permanent settlement, but we must offer them protection if we find them to be a refugee. There is NO NUMBER clause on this. And if your donkey memory cared to work you'd remember the case only a few months ago where scum tried to suggest we didn't need to give protection visas to someone (say they are refugee under our domestic law) because we reached a quota, and he was SHUT DOWN by the high court.  You dip.

2) When you break the law you break the law. Some laws you break and it means youv'e acted unlawfully. Others you break and it means you've acted illegally. Go learn the law before commenting.

3) A refugee can NEVER be an ILLEGAL REFUGEE.  Grin  Tell me HOW THEY CAN BE ILLEGAL REFUGEES?  A person who has received a refugee status can somehow be illegal?  What? Grin

4) And there actually is a refugee only exception made to entry: its called the refugee convention which explicitely says that it doesn't matter if the countries law was broken, that couldn't be used to deny the refugee status if they are genuine. Hence there is no punishment. You don't see us going, "Oh you are a refugee. We agree, here is your visa. Now we are arresting you or fininng you for breaking our law of entry."

You are a MASSIVE dipstick on this. Just stop while you still have some dignity left.



oh it just gets better.... breaking some laws is ILLEGAL and breaking others is UNLAWFUL...  good grief.  Do you even understand that those terms are IDENTICAL???

Please give me an example of an act that is illegal but not unlawful.

Bet ya cant!

your idiocy on this matter is incredible.  How does anyone debate with you when you want to redefine the meanings of words?

geez it's like arguing with a child who's just learnt what masturbation is.   Repeating the same over, and over and over again.

Dipstick, is jay walking, for instance, illegal?  Do you go to jail if you jay walk?

Check oxford dictionaries, I think you'll notice that I'm not redefining anything and you're just been your usual foolish self. 

And besides, you're still to tell me how a
REFUGEE
can be illegal.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:06am by sir prince duke alevine »  
Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.
 
IP Logged
 
Armchair_Politician
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 26043
Gender: male
Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #73 - Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:09am  
John Smith wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 10:52am:
Life_goes_on wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 8:06am:
John Smith wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 7:51am:
Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:36am:
Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:33am:
Good job Scotty boy! Send the babies to Cambodia, they make nice soup......at least it's a change from rat.


There's nothing stopping them from going home at any time they choose.


home where? they were born here?


No. Home is the nationality of the parents. The child has dual nationality, not just Australian.

Having a child here, has f-ck all effect on your chances of being granted asylum.

It's a stupid article that's seized upon the yank term "anchor babies". It'll probably also enter common usage here amongst the brain dead.


you have a baby overseas and see if the Aussie govt. will automatically accept it as a citizen ... not saying they won't but you can't just have a baby and then turn up at the airport expecting them to let him in

there are loops to be jumped and someone in detention is not in much of a position to jump them


Those loops you referred to are being used very well by these people thanks to groups like the RAC, who pay for their legal challenges. Don't be fooled into thinking they're so helpless!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
sir prince duke alevine
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male
Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #74 - Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:20am  
Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:09am:
John Smith wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 10:52am:
Life_goes_on wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 8:06am:
John Smith wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 7:51am:
Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:36am:
Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:33am:
Good job Scotty boy! Send the babies to Cambodia, they make nice soup......at least it's a change from rat.


There's nothing stopping them from going home at any time they choose.


home where? they were born here?


No. Home is the nationality of the parents. The child has dual nationality, not just Australian.

Having a child here, has f-ck all effect on your chances of being granted asylum.

It's a stupid article that's seized upon the yank term "anchor babies". It'll probably also enter common usage here amongst the brain dead.


you have a baby overseas and see if the Aussie govt. will automatically accept it as a citizen ... not saying they won't but you can't just have a baby and then turn up at the airport expecting them to let him in

there are loops to be jumped and someone in detention is not in much of a position to jump them


Those loops you referred to are being used very well by these people thanks to groups like the RAC, who pay for their legal challenges. Don't be fooled into thinking they're so helpless!

such as?
Back to top
 
Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9
Send Topic Print
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
 
 

  « Forum ‹ Board Top of this page

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge